VIII. 22. greater necessity for bringing it within the policy of CHAP. the new one." "South Carolina," said Charles Pinckney, "can never receive the plan if it prohibits the 1787. slave-trade." Sherman was perplexed between his Aug. belief in the inherent right of man to freedom and the tenet of the right of each state to settle for itself its internal affairs, and said: "I disapprove of the slave-trade; yet, as the states are now possessed of the right to import slaves, and as it is expedient to have as few objections as possible to the proposed scheme of government, I think it best to leave the matter as we find it." " Mason, compressing the observation of a long life into a few burning words, replied: "This infernal traffic originated in the avarice of British merchants; the British government constantly checked the attempts of Virginia to put a stop to it. The present question concerns not the importing states alone, but the whole union. Maryland and Virginia have already prohibited the importation of slaves expressly; North Carolina has done the same in substance. All this would be in vain if South Carolina and Georgia be at liberty to import them. The western people are already calling out for slaves for their new lands, and will fill that country with slaves if they can be got through South Carolina and Georgia. Slavery discourages arts and manufactures. The poor despise labor when performed by slaves. They prevent the emigration of whites, who really enrich and strengthen a country. They produce the most pernicious effect on manners. Every master of slaves is born a petty 1 Gilpin, 1389; Elliot, 457. 2 Gilpin, 1390; Elliot, 457. Aug. 22. CHAP. tyrant. They bring the judgment of Heaven on a VIII. country. As nations cannot be rewarded or punished 1787. in the next world, they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, Providence punishes national sins by national calamities. I lament that some of our eastern brethren have, from a lust of gain, embarked in this nefarious traffic. As to the states being in possession of the right to import, this is the case with many other rights, now to be properly given up. I hold it essential in every point of view, that the general government should have power to prevent the increase of slavery." Mason spoke from his inmost soul, anxious for the happiness of his country and the welfare of mankind. 1 To words of such intense sincerity Ellsworth answered with almost mocking irony: "As I have never owned a slave I cannot judge of the effects of slavery on character. If, however, it is to be considered in a moral light, we ought to go further and free the slaves already in the country. Besides, slaves multiply so fast in Virginia and Maryland, that it is cheaper to raise than import them, whilst in the sickly rice-swamps foreign supplies are necessary; if we go no further than is urged, we shall be unjust toward South Carolina and Georgia. Let us not intermeddle. As population increases, poor laborers will be so plenty as to render slaves useless. Slavery, in time, will not be a speck in our country. Provision is made in Connecticut for abol ishing it; and the abolition has already taken place in Massachusetts." 1 Gilpin, 1390, 1391; Elliot, 458. 2 * Gilpin, 1392; Elliot, 458. VIII. "If the southern states are let alone," said Charles CHAP. Pinckney, "they will probably of themselves stop importations. I would myself, as a citizen of South 1787. Carolina, vote for it.” In the same vein Cotesworth Pinckney remarked: "If I and all my colleagues were to sign the constitution and use our personal influence, it would be of no avail toward obtaining the consent of our constituents. South Carolina and Georgia cannot do without slaves. Virginia will gain by stopping the importations. Her slaves will rise in value, and she has more than she wants. It would be unequal to require South Carolina and Georgia to confederate on such terms. Slaves should be dutied like other imports; but a rejection of the clause is the exclusion of South Carolina from the union." Baldwin, with opinions on the rights of the states like those of Ellsworth and Sherman, continued: "The object before the convention is not national, but local. Georgia cannot purchase the advantage of a general government by yielding the abridgment of one of her favorite prerogatives. If left to herself, she may probably put a stop to the evil."" 1 "If South Carolina and Georgia," observed Wilson, "are themselves disposed to get rid of the importation of slaves in a short time, they will never refuse to unite because the importation might be prohibited." To this Cotesworth Pinckney made answer: "I think myself bound to declare candidly, that I do not believe South Carolina will stop her imporGilpin, 1393; Elliot, 459. 3 1 Gilpin, 1392, 1393; Elliot, 459. Aug. 22. 2 Gilpin, 1393; Elliot, 459. CHAP. tations of slaves in any short time, except occasionally as she now does.' VIII. 1787. Aug. 22. 99 1 "On every principle of honor and safety," said Dickinson, "it is inadmissible that the importation of slaves should be authorized to the states by the constitution. The true question is whether the national happiness will be promoted or impeded by the importation; and this question ought to be left to the national government, not to the states particularly interested. I cannot believe that the southern states will refuse to confederate on that account, as the power is not likely to be immediately exercised by the general government." Here was the first opening to a grant of the power, coupled with a prospect of delay in using it. 2 Williamson, himself no friend of slavery, distinctly intimated that North Carolina would go with her two neighbors on the south. Cotesworth Pinckney now moved to commit the clause, that slaves might be made liable to an equal tax with other imports." "If the convention," said Rutledge, "thinks that North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia will ever agree to the plan, unless their right to import slaves be untouched, the expectation is vain ;" and he seconded the motion for a commitment. Gouverneur Morris wished the whole subject to be committed, including the clauses relating to taxes on exports and to a naviga tion act. These things might form a bargain among the northern and southern states. "Rather than to part with the southern states," said Sherman, "it is Gilpin, 1395; Elliot, 460. 1 Gilpin, 1395; Elliot, 460. VIII. better to let them import slaves. But a tax on slaves CHAP. imported makes the matter worse, because it implies they are property." "Two states," said Randolph, "may be lost to the union; let us, then, try the chance of a commitment." The motion for commitment was adopted by the votes of Connecticut, New Jersey, and the five southernmost states, against New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Delaware; Massachusetts was absent. Charles Pinckney and Langdon then moved to commit the section relating to a navigation act." "I desire it to be remembered," said Gorham, remotely hinting at possible secession, "the eastern states have no motive to union but a commercial one." Ellsworth, maintaining the position which he had deliberately chosen, answered: "I am for taking the plan as it is. If we do not agree on this middle and moderate ground, I am afraid we shall lose two states with others that may stand aloof; and fly, most probably, into several confederations, not without bloodshed."" Had the convention listened to no compromise on the slave-trade, Georgia and South Carolina would not have accepted the new constitution; North Carolina would have clung to them, from its internal condition; Virginia, however earnest might have been the protest against it by Madison and Washington, must have acted with North Carolina, and, as a consequence, there would from the beginning have been a federation of slave-holding states. The committee to which the whole subject of restriction on the power Gilpin, 1397; Elliot, 461. • Ibid. 1 Gilpin, 1396; Elliot, 461. 2 Gilpin, 1397; Elliot, 461. 1787. Aug. 22. |